Lyman & Lee Manuals

Thread Tools

Just noticed this --- Both the Lyman's 49th Edition and the Lee 2nd Edition Loading Manuals have notations in the .40 S&W sections of thier books that say not to use the data shown in for .40 S&W in chambers that are not fully supported.

Specifically, in the .40 S&W section of the Lee 2nd Edition manaul it says: "Do not use reloads in Glock or similar guns with chambers that do not fully support the cartrige due to intruision of the feed ramp."

The Lyman 49th Edition .40 S&W section it says: "Warning: Only use this data in handguns that fully support the cartridge in the chamber. If used in unsupported chambers, cases can ruture and cause harm to the shooter or bystanders."

There are not any of the "warnings" printed in sections of the reloading manuals for any other calibers. The "warnings" are printed only in the .40 S&W sections both of the reloading manuals.

Up until now I have reloaded only for 9mm. I have not loaded .40 S&W up until this point but recently bought a set of .40 S&W dies with plans to load for a G27.

WTF??? Are they serious? I assume that everyone just ignores the warnings. Or, am I wrong? Should I take the warnings seriously and load .40 S&W only in lighter loads?

Ignore it and just look for warning signs. Most Glock barrels now are very well supported.

Click to expand...

That's what I figured. I've read too many posts on this forum to think that anyone really paid any attention to the warnings.

I guess everyone has to keep their back sides covered but I'm still curious as to why the warnings are only printed in the .40 S&W sections of the two manuals and not all of the other caliber sections of the books.

Oh well, onwards and upwards.

Hopefully will begin reloading some Precision Delta 180 gr FMJ .40's next week for the first time. Plan on using some Unique and some PP to work up some test loads.

I wouldn't ignore the warnings! Suppose I had a Glock Gen 1 .40. That chamber isn't very well supported. Or course, I am guessing that there is actually a Gen 1 .40 - I wouldn't know. Sometime back, actually, a long time back, there was a problem with Glock .40s.

But it IS a fact that there are still Glocks in circulation where the feedramp seriously undercuts the chamber.

I would check my chamber by dropping a round in place and see what I thought about the support of the case near the feedramp.

Somebody on this forum posts photos of the various barrels and I know I have seen similar photos in General Glocking. A forum search will probably turn up something.

There's a reason the warnings are there. For newer models it may not be an issue but it certainly used to be a problem. As the warnings are only related to .40, it is also apparent that the folks writing the manual knew exactly which guns had the defect.

You worry about everything. I said ignore the warning AND LOOK FOR WARNING SIGNS. Factory ammo in .40 is sometimes kinda stout PLUS brass in .40 back in the early days was a little thin. Download modern brass just a bit and it will work fine even in the old barrels.

Look for signs by checking the round in the chamber and by looking at expended brass. Look for the photos of the unsupported chambers and look for photos of the Glock pimple. Good information to have.

But the tipoff that looking is even required is right there in the manual. There was, at one time, a problem sufficient to justify adding the warning to the manual. Just something to show that some amount of investigation is warranted.

Were it not for the published warnings, this thread wouldn't even exist.

I have heard that Federal brass was a little wimpy in the early days but I have seen the photos of the unsupported cases and the Glock dimple.

They have a term for that. It's called the "Ski Pass" syndrome or something like that. Back in the 70's, the ski resorts were getting sued. So they put a simple warning on the back of the lift pass. After a few years, the warnings had gotten so long, convoluted, and the print was so small, that no one bothered to read it anymore. That's what is going on here. They provide data and then spend a chapter in the beginning, and then several more throughout the manual, warning you to not use any of the info in the book.

Look for signs by checking the round in the chamber and by looking at expended brass. Look for the photos of the unsupported chambers and look for photos of the Glock pimple. Good information to have.

But the tipoff that looking is even required is right there in the manual. There was, at one time, a problem sufficient to justify adding the warning to the manual. Just something to show that some amount of investigation is warranted.

Were it not for the published warnings, this thread wouldn't even exist.

I have heard that Federal brass was a little wimpy in the early days but I have seen the photos of the unsupported cases and the Glock dimple.

Richard

Click to expand...

Ok, your confusing me now! Which isn't hard, is it pimple or dimple and is that anything like bulge?

I noticed this in a couple of my new ones, in my older ones it doesnt have this warning. Got another one that has a full page of disclaimers, boils down to someone tried to blame them for something and lawyers got involved. Old guy at work has some books from the 70s that make the loads in my books look like powder puff loads.

Ok, your confusing me now! Which isn't hard, is it pimple or dimple and is that anything like bulge?

Click to expand...

I always thought of the bulge as a large ring entirely around the case. The entire chamber is too large.

OTOH, the pimple (or dimple or whatever) is a section of brass that is bulged out right where it meets the feedramp. There are plenty of example photos of brass failure in this region. The entire head doesn't separate, just a blown out area where the feedramp is overcut.

I realize this is kind of an old problem and it's been known for years and years. But it's strictly a .40 S&W Glock problem that, AFAIK, has since been corrected. Still, there are probably barrels around from the earlier versions.

I always thought of the bulge as a large ring entirely around the case. The entire chamber is too large.

OTOH, the pimple (or dimple or whatever) is a section of brass that is bulged out right where it meets the feedramp. There are plenty of example photos of brass failure in this region. The entire head doesn't separate, just a blown out area where the feedramp is overcut.

I realize this is kind of an old problem and it's been known for years and years. But it's strictly a .40 S&W Glock problem that, AFAIK, has since been corrected. Still, there are probably barrels around from the earlier versions.

I don't load .40 but if I ever do, it will be for a Sig 229.

Richard

Click to expand...

Well I'm glad you cleared that up.

I also have an old Gen 2 G23 in .40 That never had a bulge of any size on it. For years I even did a couple of things with it that I didn't know you wern't supposed to do until I started reading on the internet.

And that was load lead in the factory barrel and they were 155gr lead swc to boot. They fed, fired, and ejected fine without any noteworthy leading or bulges or pimples or dimples.

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more. As our membership continues to grow we look forward to reading your stories and learning from your experiences. Membership is free and we welcome all types of shooters, whether you're a novice or a pro. Come for the info, stay and make some friends..